GR 102308; (July, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102308 July 25, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARTIN LAYAM (alias Barentoy) and CHIQUITO LAYAM (alias Amid), accused-appellants.
FACTS
The accused-appellants, brothers Martin and Chiquito Layam, were charged with Murder for the killing of Enrique Tanato. The prosecution evidence established that on August 27, 1989, the appellants were having a drinking spree when they mauled another individual. The victim, Tanato, along with a barangay councilman, approached to pacify them. After a verbal exchange, Tanato turned his back and walked away. Chiquito then shot Tanato twice from behind, causing him to fall. Martin, a PC soldier armed with an armalite rifle, then approached the fallen victim and fired multiple shots at him. Martin later returned to fire another volley and attempted to plant a revolver on the victim’s body to simulate self-defense.
The appellants admitted the killing but interposed the justifying circumstance of self-defense. They claimed that a prior basketball game had caused tension. They alleged that on the day of the incident, the victim, armed with a gun, rushed towards Martin, prompting Chiquito to shoot him in defense of his brother. Martin claimed he also fired to defend himself.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of Murder and rejected their claim of self-defense.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. The claim of self-defense was untenable. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to them to establish its elements by clear and convincing evidence. The appellants failed to discharge this burden. Their version was riddled with inconsistencies and was positively contradicted by the credible and consistent testimonies of three eyewitnesses for the prosecution. The physical evidence, including the location and number of gunshot wounds (fourteen in total) and the fact that the initial shots were delivered from behind, completely belied the story of a sudden armed attack by the victim. The acts of shooting the already fallen and helpless victim multiple times and the subsequent attempt to plant a weapon demonstrate a determined effort to kill, not a defensive act. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated as the attack from behind ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The Court modified the civil indemnity to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) but sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua.